Background

The Complainant alleges that the Council violated the OMA when the agenda for its January 15, 2020 meeting was posted on the Secretary of State’s website less than 48-hours before the meeting took place. Specifically, the Complainant alleges that the notice was posted on January 14, 2020 for a meeting held on January 15, 2020. The Complainant further states that she notified the Council at its January 15, 2020 meeting that the meeting notice was deficient.

Relevant Law

When we examine an OMA complaint, our authority is to determine whether a violation of the OMA has occurred.  See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8.  In doing so, we must begin with the plain language of the OMA and relevant caselaw interpreting this statute.

The OMA requires public bodies to provide written notice of their regularly scheduled meetings at the start of each calendar year, and to provide supplemental written notice within 48 hours of the meeting, excluding weekends and state holidays. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a)-(b).

Here, it is undisputed that the Council failed to post notice for its January 15, 2020 meeting with the Secretary of State 48-hours in advance of the meeting. As such, we find the Council violated the OMA.

Conclusion

The OMA provides that the Office of the Attorney General may institute an action in Superior Court for violations of the OMA on behalf of a complainant or the public interest. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(a), (e). The Superior Court may issue injunctive relief and declare null and void any actions of the public body found to be in violation of the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46- 8(d). Additionally, the Superior Court may impose fines up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Id.

Injunctive relief is not appropriate here because the Council provided undisputed evidence that it re-convened and re-voted on the January 15 agenda at its January 29 meeting. Nor do we find sufficient evidence of a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. The Council posted notice for the January 15 meeting at the Town Hall and the Library on January 10, and posted notice on the Secretary of State’s website, albeit in an untimely manner. Moreover, upon learning of the untimely posting of notice on the Secretary of State’s website, the Council adjourned the meeting and notified this Office of its error. We are concerned that the Council has two prior violations for this same issue from several years ago, see Stewart, et al. v. West Greenwich Town Council, OM 11-13; Duffy v. West Greenwich Town Council, OM 11-12, but we do not find evidence of a willful or knowing violation in the circumstances of this case.  This finding serves as notice that the conduct discussed herein violates the OMA and may serve as evidence of a willful or a knowing violation in any similar future situation.

Although the Office of the Attorney General will not file suit in this matter, please be advised that nothing within the OMA prohibits an individual from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(c).  The OMA allows the Complainant to file a complaint within ninety (90) days from the date of the Attorney General’s closing of the complaint or within one hundred eighty (180) days of the alleged violation, whichever occurs later. See id. Please be advised that we are closing this Complaint as of the date of this letter.

We thank you for your interest in keeping government open and accountable to the public.

Sincerely,

PETER F. NERONHA

ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Kayla E. O’Rourke

Kayla E. O’Rourke

Special Assistant Attorney General